Discussing taxes Friday, Obama claimed that “… on Tuesday night, we found out that the majority of Americans agree with my approach.” No we didn’t, the Journal shows, at least if we’re to believe the exit polls people on his side of the aisle claim tell us all we need to know (bolds are mine):

The President’s Tax BludgeonInstead of an olive branch, the President keeps campaigning.

… that’s not as clear as he claims. One exit poll question on Tuesday asked “Should taxes be raised to help cut the budget deficit?” The answer was no by nearly 2 to 1.

… Mr. Obama’s hard line will cheer his left flank, which wants him to drive Republicans into submission on taxes and everything else. Apart from the joy of humiliating the GOP, the calculation seems to be that tax rates don’t matter to the economy. So raise rates with impunity, pocket the extra revenue, and only then discuss whether to cut any spending or reform the tax code or entitlements.

But to what end? Congress’s Joint Tax Committee estimates that raising taxes on income over $250,000 ($200,000 if you’re single) will raise $823 billion over 10 years on a static revenue basis. That includes all revenue from increases in marginal income tax rates, capital gains, dividends, reinstating the phaseouts of deductions for the wealthy and also treating dividends as ordinary income.

That’s only $82 billion a year in extra revenue when the federal deficit in fiscal 2012 was $1.1 trillion. So even if Mr. Obama gets his way, his tax increase would only cut the deficit by about 7.5%. And that assumes the tax increase would have no impact on economic growth. If growth slows below its already paltry pace, tax revenue would rise by less than expected despite the higher rates.

… he’s taking a big gamble both with the economy and his own second term.

… To succeed in a second term, Mr. Obama needs faster economic growth above all else. He must have GDP growth of 3%-4% a year, instead of the 1%-2% of his first term, in order to raise incomes and provide the revenue he wants to reduce the deficit and pay for his spending. Growth at this pace is what helped Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton survive other setbacks in their second terms.

The success of those two-term Presidents was also bipartisan. Reagan passed tax reform when Democrats ran the House. Mr. Clinton agreed to a balanced-budget deal with Newt Gingrich that cut the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%. If Mr. Obama wants to avoid a fiscal and political crash, he’ll have to stop campaigning and start governing.

Sadly, that’s not going to happen.

Unfortunately, the Journal, like so many others, assumes that Obama is even interested in acceptably growing the economy. The truth is that he has hasn’t shown legitimate interest in doing that. From his viewpoint, if that happens, fine (at least enough of it to give him political cover with his media lapdogs). But what’s really important to him, as he has demonstrated time and again during his two-year campaign in 2007 and 2008 and his nearly four years in office, is “fundamentally transforming” the nation into a top-down, government dependent-dominated state, the consequences be damned.

He doesn’t care that going after tax increases, solves less than 10% of the problem, or that changing marginal rates virtually guarantees that the increase in tax collections will be nowhere near what the static estimate cited above. He only cares about “revenge,” while continuing to drive what has until now been the greatest economy in the world towards financial oblivion. He’s figuring that regardless of what happens, he and his party will emerge as the political winner. He may be right, but even if he isn’t, that’s okay by him. The “transformation” will have been accomplished.

2 Comments

Here is why our leader has no desire to settle this affair before it gets put into effect.

It will impose tax hikes on everyone who pays federal income taxes (not just the 2%)
It will cut entitlements without his having to support the actions
It will reduce defense spending without him ‘looking soft’ as Commander-in-Chief
It will end the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ automatically
It will probably slow economic growth (GDP)

Why would our President want these things to take place?

He would get the extra tax revenues to use without being blamed
He could not be held accountable for breaking his ubiquitous pledge to never raise taxes on the bottom 98%
He would not be the one cutting entitlements, it would be ‘out of his hands’
He prefers to cut defense spending rather than social programs
He can later ‘give back’ tax cuts to the Middle Class
He can then call them the ‘Obama Tax Cuts’
He can blame those damn ‘Obstructionist Republicans’ for the next recession

Exactly and that’s why the GOP leadership is a bunch of dunces. The point of increasing deficit spending to $1 trillion a year was to make this deal of 1/2 defense cuts and 1/2 social spending cuts leaving Democrats with a gain on both of their agendas, reducing the military and increasing vote buying (social spending) in the end game. This is why the US gave up it’s role of world leadership and President Obama seems to lead from behind. The point of course is Obama wants the US to be like every other country in the world where it’s elites run their respective countries like piggy banks for themselves. You can’t do that effectively IF you are the leader as it invites too many nettlesome responsibilities distracting your self enrichment schemes from pillaging the country.

z Pol-Party-Lobby Sites z

Unclassified

Comments

Comments are welcome, but are moderated.
Posting of comments is not immediate, and may take up to 24 hours.
Comment posting, as well as possible deletion, isat the sole discretion of BizzyBlog.
Allowing a comment to be posted does not constitute agreement with it, or endorsement of it.

-----------------------------

S.O.B. Alliance

SOB Alliance posts

Testimonials

"(ACORN) says it provide lots of services for poor people, but a recent NewsBusters post by Tom Blumer exposes the hollow facts behind the claims."